Earlier in the week I promised to get more information on the current state of code enforcement in New Albany.
In response to a question asked in a comment to a previous post, I laid out what I knew at the time. I had the opportunity to speak to Carl Malysz and pose the same question to him.
He essentially confirmed what I had written previously.
The only additional information he gave me is that the Building Commissioner's position is expected to be filled in a couple of weeks.
The filling of that position, along with the other code enforcement positions which were advertised as open positions, will constitute a complete reorganization of City's efforts to get serious about code issues. As many will recall, that was a platform plank from the Mayor's campaign. It was also touted as needed by several City Council candidates, myself included.
While it would have been nice to reach this point some time ago, I am hopeful that the City's on the right track now on that issue. I would think we should begin to see better results in the relatively near future, perhaps six to eight weeks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
We'll hope the hiring of new talent at the infamous building Commissions Office might proceed with the goal of finding enforcement personnel who have a minimum education in the issues their office will deal with. Where is this position advertised? For how much? Who hires + fires the Chief Code Enforcement officer?
G.Coyle:
The position was advertised in the September 6, 2009 Tribune.
I no longer have the paper, nor did I pay any attention to the salary.
I believe the Mayor hires the Building Commissioner and the Commissioner in turn should have the Code Enforcement crew under his/her command.
An interesting and hopefully optimistic perspective that merely hiring a new building commissioner will yield the sweeping reform and "complete reorganization" of the challenges we face in code enforcement.
Hasn't happened in the past 6 or 8 years, do we really think it will in the next "6 to 8 weeks?"
Mayor England said it would change.
Mayor Garner said it would change.
Mayor Overton said it would change.
( In fact, despite the issues with her leadership, we actually DID tear down over 70 junk properties under her administration )
Here are some of the facts...
Over the past 3 administrations, we have continued to add layers of bureaucracy and staff to the development process in an attempt to correct one problem or another.
Sewer board, storm water board, special council committees, new code enforcement officer,etc layered on top of the existing Plan commission, board of zoning appeals, board of public works, council PUD process and more in an effort to right the problem. Think about what currently needs to happen for a new development to get approval in our community. All of these entities have to sign off on projects as well as the fire department, State building commissioner and then finally the local building commissioner.
We have yet to solve the problems surrounding code enforcement and yet we have the most complicated approval process of any municipality our size in the state.
These same well intended folks are the ones who set and enforce the codes and rules of existing properties as well.
Truth is that the only thing we have done in classic government fashion over the past years is add more delay, hastle, expense and frustration for all involved...our citizens, the development community and our elected and appointed members of the various boards. In fact, the level of frustration is so great from those serving that good men like Ron Carroll just give up and quit.
So, my sense is that instead of hoping a new building commissioner ( or the moratorium ) will be the Messiah that cures all in some philosophical way, let's get a practical solution to what ails us.
How about this for a fix:
1. We need strong executive leadership to guide the process of breaking down the silos that exist between the various staff, council and boards.
This will not be easy or simple but necessary. Challenge is who will own this? Not Mayor England as he has had numerous health issues and will soon have another surgery and be out for some time. Not Mr. Malysz as he is already doing the work of 3 people and doesn't have the time. Not the council as they seem to have trouble being in unity on solutions to a multitude of problems that we have. So, first we must have effective, strong, and unified leadership in consensus to fix the problem of unifying the current silos that exist.
2. We need to... quite simply... enforce the rules, ordinances, and laws already existing on our books.
Weeds and overgrown lawns are to be mowed.
Trash and junk piled up is to be removed.
Ditches are to be cleaned out. Downspouts are to be disconnected from the sewer system.
Citizens are to quit placing their grass clippings and tree trimmings in the drainage swales in their back yards.
Developers are to do what they said they would in the approval process.
3. We need to see the results of the new drainage study and take the $1.00 per 2,500 s/f of non pervious surface area approved last month by the council ( about $400,000 annually ) and use those dollars to issue a bond that will finance the construction and correction of the drainage issues indicated on the study.
4. We need to stop and reflect that until all of the above is done first, a moratorium or hiring additional staff will not solve anything as we will just be kicking the can forward for 6 to 9 months while simultaneously preventing new job and tax base creation.
( Continued below )
( Continued )
5. We need to adequately hold people in charge accountable for enforcement inactions without placing blame or accusing folks of not being well intended. ( ie: the oft referred to conspiracy theories that abound between the different silos )
So, let's not get excited that this will happen in 6 to 8 weeks....but it CAN happen if, and only if, all of the interested parties are willing to step up to the plate and make it so.
If not, we will continue to have the same discussion 3 administrations from now.
I agree with previous post, but sorry such common sense observations must hide from public view.
in my lifetime the population of NA has dropped by half while city govt has grown and grown, as the previous post mentions. I was quite surprised when I moved back a few years ago. One drive thru town and it's clear there is a seriously messed up town here.
The natural storm drain system has been destroyed. Can't imagine how we fix the storm water problems without a natural system on our side. As it stands, every storm threatens the infrastructure. This costs the taxpayers over and over.
Compared to other parts of the country, our county has not realized any efficiencies in it's public services. Problem? Just add more layers or people or ... as astutely pointed out previously. If we did away with all the layers of bullshit in local government, and added up-to-date technology, would we learn we don't need half the people who are on the city payroll?
As for my favorite waste of money, the mayor's salary, can I just wonder again in public why a man with serious health issues would want to run for Mayor? Why do I get the feeling the public payroll here is used as a health insurance/pension scheme instead of as a job that supports the larger community?
Code Enforcement. For three years I've invested my money in rehabbing a historic house on Main St. If the community supports my efforts, then why does local govt allow my next door neighbor to literally destroy his historic house, thereby negating my investment? I've yet to hear our administration even understands why we must enforce our codes!!
But I do hear about the cities fabulous plans to spend more taxpayer money for more stuff they can't and won't take care up.
Maybe I'm the Joe Wilson of NA, but I'll keep saying "you lie" to this group of government employees till they prove they get this town has been destroyed and they know what that means and how to prioritize fixing it. The very idea of further development is weird when our infrastructure is so blithely mismanaged already.
I do want development, but not at the normal cost here.
Anonymous & G.Coyle:
You both make excellent points.
The intention of the proposed moratorium and the enhanced code enforcement regimen is to allow the past decisions to catch up with the current desire for a better, cleaner, healthier city.
Part of that is that we successfully,efficiently, and healthfully shed the city's waste and storm waters to cause the least ill-effects on the environment. Another part is that code provisions be routinely and fairly applied to protect the health and welfare of the citizens.
Changes in personnel are not the entire answer. In fact changes in personnel are sometimes simply a convenient red herring thrown out to distract from deeper suystemic problems, as you both suggest.
But we are now faced with a change in personnel. It is pointless to expect anything to change during this interregnum. Once a new Commissioner is in place, it will be incumbent on that person to recognize that he holds in his hands the electoral fortunes of the Mayor. That recognition should be sufficient motivation to focus efforts on results rather than excuses. That motivation needs to come from the Mayor as an expression of sound management of the City.
The same principle is applicable to any of the boards and commissions which implement policy.
As for the moratorium on building permits, it has been suggested by counsel that the provisions precluding action on by-right developments constitute an illegal taking of property rights. Since my intention was not to derail prosperity, but to ensure that development in the brief window preceding the revelation of a new Masterplan for Stormwater not add to an obviously existing problem, I am going to investigate another approach.
Perhaps it would be better to simply allow development during this period, but to stipulate that upon completion of the Masterplan, any building will be subject to "look back" and squaring with the new plan. This is placing a strong expectation of effectiveness from the new plan. Based on the cost of the plan,approximately $250,000, I think such an expectation is warranted.
I don't mean to shield myself from any of the blame which may be assigned to those in leadership positions.
Post a Comment